Stylocheilus. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Stylocheilus striatus 48654
Taxonomic Split 88466
(Δημιουργήθηκε στις 05-02-2023)
|
|
διάσπαση σε |
|
Σχόλια
@hsini_lin, we have an established method for dealing with splits: making a taxon split record on iNat. That saves everyone time and executes the change in a way that everyone affected can see why the split was made and how to address situations where the changes could not be automated. We do not advise trying to fix these situations by adding IDs before adding a split record, because it makes more work for everyone and because it results in situations like the one you noted.
To deal with the current situation, I advise manually reviewing observations identified as the input taxon that are above species level: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?reviewed=any&ident_taxon_id=48654&lrank=complex&place_id=any
If you'd like to learn more about changing iNat's taxonomy, please see https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator%252Bguide#changes
@kueda I understand. I'm more stupid, so every time I did spend my time to review one by one the photos, not only because it was a good chance to review all the IDs but also an opportunity to find the exceptions that the authors of the papers did not consider or when the sampling was not done completely, or incases there are sympatric species. ;)
What I can't understand is: the example I attached was from Australia and, from the map here above I saw Australia is included in the Indo-Pacific correctly, so why It has been moved into genus level from correct ID Stylocheilus striatus after the split?
For https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/141354132, iNat doesn't think it is in Australia, so the atlas-based changed didn't apply. If you click "Details" under the map, you'll see the "Standard Places" list is empty, meaning the coordinates are not in any of the place boundaries that we on staff control (continents, countries, states, etc). Looking at the place boundary at https://www.inaturalist.org/places/australia, it looks like a lot of the outer reefs in that area are not within Australia according to iNat. I'm not 100% sure if we have a protocol for dealing with this beyond flagging the place. @loarie might be able to provide more input as he added a lot of these place boundaries.
Thank you!
yes the iNat standard places are the GADM with a 0.05 degree coastal buffer https://inaturalist.org/pages/standard+places
that location falls outside of the resulting Australia Standard place boundary
Some of us did already correct most of the Stylocheilus spp. IDs on iNat after the publication of Bazziculapo et al. (2020).
But now some observations with correct IDs have been move into genus level... one example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/141354132